We are not secessionists, we are self-determinationists

Restorationist Drum Today
 
It is indeed pleasing to note that the Restorationist Movement and or lobby is on fire with the Agenda for the Restoration of our country, Mama Matebeleland (Mthwakazi).

Before going further it must be noted that Restorationist politics is self-determinationist politics and these are very different from secessionist politics. I will explain later the difference between self-determination (Restorationism) politics and Secession politics for the benefit of Mthwakazi activists.

There is no doubt that Mthwakazi Nationalism is on the rise and creating necessary and much needed waves. It is also pleasing to note that the government of Zimbabwe is becoming increasingly rattled by the increasing calls for the Restoration of our state from colonial Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe, as an oppressor, is in a state of anxiety over the issue as evidenced by Mnangagwa's recent comments on the issue.

Mnangagwa's comments come after the publication and launch of Jonathan Maphenduka's book, "Rule by Conquest: The Struggle in Mthwakazi" and many other forms of agitations carried by formations from the Restorationist Movement and or lobby such as the  Mthwakazi Peoples' Congress (MPC), Mthwakazi Liberation Front (MLF), Matebeleland Liberation Organization (MLO), uMhlahlo wesizwe sikaMthwakazi (uMweM), Mthwakazi Republic Party (MRP) and many contributions from individuals on the subject matter.

The Restorationist Movement in its various forms and strands has been doing a great job in pushing the Agenda forward. The movement is getting stronger and stronger in selling the idea to the people of uMthwakazi and to the international community. Long may the movement gain in strength and unity of purpose in pursuance of this just, moral and right cause.

And it is true that this " idea whose time has come" (Mthwakazi Restoration) is reaching a critical stage of mass re-orientation of our people towards realizing the need to recover uMthwakazi as a state from colonial Zimbabwe. The recovery and restoration of uMthwakazi state from colonial Zimbabwe will indeed offer a permanent solution to the Matebeleland Question.

Every effort that has been made for the past 35 years by our own compatriots in their many strands of political churches has been skirting on the edges of the solution. Now the real idea of the solution has come and people of Matebeleland must welcome this idea (Mthwakazi Restoration) and take it to heart with the full understanding that it will be a long and perilous journey as opposed to a short relay race to freedom.

We all know that the Matebeleland Question arises from the fact that Matebeleland (Mthwakazi) is currently a submerged nation in Zimbabwe (Mashonaland). This therefore means that Matebeleland is a colony of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe is a colonizer and colonizing entity in Matebeleland. The exercise of Zimbabwe's authority and power over Matebeleland is therefore illegitimate.

We also know that Cecil John Rhodes' Order-in-Council declared Matebeleland and Mashonaland as British Protectorates in 1891 and by 1923 annexed the two separate territories to the British Crown so that King Lobengula's subjects, the Matebele became the subjects of the British and so did the Mashona who became subjects of the British Crown too through this colonial declaration act.

We also know that the misleading and deceptive treaties that were signed with the British and the Boers by King Lobengula such as the secret Grobler treaty with Boers (December 1887), where Matebeleland is meant to have agreed to be a protectorate of South Africa, the Moffat treaty (February 1888) and the Rudd Concession (October 1888) were fraudulently signed and obtained with the full understanding that King Lobengula was the legal and executive authority over Matebeleland Kingdom.

It is therefore clear that the act of deceptively snatching of our Matebeleland Kingdom from King Lobengula by Cecil Rhodes and his cronies using fraudulent means still recognised that King Lobengula was the legal authority and or legal institution or custodian of the Kingdom whom they had to deal with to achieve their nefarious goals of deception and fraud. When the King realilized he had been deceived and tried to disavow these agreements, their legal fraud was eventually complemented by acts of war and genocide against the Matebele to effectively take over the Kingdom and attach it to the British Crown fully.

Therefore in pursuance of people-hood and nationhood via the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Mthwakazi citizens need to recover and restore their territory from Zimbabwe as a Nation. The legal route therefore is one avenue among many avenues that would need to be adopted to get redress and restoration of our nation via legal means. The existence of Matebeleland under Zimbabwean rule is a dispute that needs to be settled at international law. We have a strong case in our hands. We need to put our hands together to push our case up the hill for recognition at international level.

At the Lancaster House talks, these two separate colonies, Matebeleland and Mashonaland must have been decolonized separately but what happened is that Matebeleland became a submerged nation to the Mashonaland territory in 1980. Submerged and colonized nations have a right to self-determination at international law.

In the circumstances that the peoples of Matebeleland (Mthwakazi) find themselves in and in pursuance of the Restoration of our state,   Costellino (2014) contends that the vehicle for our true and genuine decolonization can only be fulfilled via self-determination politics as enshrined in the 14th December 1960 UN  Declaration on Granting of Independence to Colonial countries and Peoples.

Based on the vehicle of self-determination politics with which we are supposed to be pushing our agenda, it is therefore a misnomer to call ourselves secessionists or allow ourselves to be called secessionists by the hostile Zimbabwean media and government.

Liberation movements like ZANLA, ZIPRA, ANC, and SWAPO were never secessionists but were self-determinationists, who pursued liberation politics to recover territories that were taken via colonialism as enshrined in the UN Declaration on Granting Independence. Nelson Mandela, Joshua Nkomo, Kenneth Kaunda, Julius Mwalimu Nyerere, Patrice Lumumba, Kwamen Nkrumah and many others were not secessionists. They were self–determinationists and pursuing self-determination that is recognised by international law.

Secession, according to Costellino (2014)  is different from self-determination in that it is about a part of a country breaking from that entity to form a new state that never existed before usually due to gross marginalization and gross human rights violations of a section of the peoples who form part of that state.

Matebeleland is not seeking to form a new state. It has never been part of Zimbabwe (Mashonaland). It has always existed separately as a stand-alone territory from Zimbabwe (Mashonaland) until the Order-in-Council of 1891 where it was declared together with Mashonaland as British Protectorates and then governed together as Southern Rhodesia. Therefore we are not seeking to secede from Zimbabwe but to decolonize Matebeleland from Zimbabwe and decolonization politics is self-determinationist politics and self-determination politics is indeed restorationist politics. We are seeking to recover and restore an already existing state that was once under the umbrella of white colonialism and is now under the umbrella of a black colonial power, namely Zimbabwe (Mashonaland).

My contribution today is therefore a challenge to Restorationists in their different and respective political formations and churches to discard the language of secession in their narratives and fully adopt Restorationist/Self-determinationist narrative that locates our struggle very well within the umbrella of International law recognised by the United Nations.